Shield on a Warlock

[Yogibear41]

So I'm thinking of grabbing a mithral small shield for my warlock and tossing a quick +1 bonus on it for a decent +2 to ac for around 1500 gp if my wizard friend does the +1 for me, even though im not proficient with it the ACP is 0 so I won't take any negatives, and being mithral reduces the arcane spell failure chance to 0%.

Is their any reason why I shouldn't do this? My dm tells me I can use eldritch blast with only one hand. I am also dumping cha and mostly relying on the 24 hour buff spells. (except the shatter one)

[Diarmuid]

Would you be better suited to just buying a wand of Shield?

[OzymandiasX]

The only reason not to would be that you wouldn't have a free hand to hold a weapon most of the time. So depending on what you can get your hands on, either a weapon or a shield works.

[Hunter Noventa]

Get a Mithril Buckler instead. it allows you to hold, but not use items in said hand, so if you do need to hold onto a weapon, you can put it in your off hand while shooting your lasers.

Course, there's also nothing saying you have to use your hands for Eldritch Blast other than your DM. There's no reason your warlock can't shoot Eye Lasers.

[Diarmuid]

The class description specifically states that EB and Invocations have Somatic components which the SRD defines as "A somatic component is a measured and precise movement of the hand. You must have at least one hand free to provide a somatic component. "

[Cerlis]

you could wield a wand/weapon in your main hand and gesture with your offhand, wielding a buckler. When you use your blast or other active powers you dont get the benefit of its AC (just like attacking with a weapon ) but every other round you dont attack or use that hand significantly you'd get it.

[nedz]

Using a buckler keeps both of your hands free.


Shield Proficiency [General]
Benefit
You can use a shield and take only the standard penalties.
Normal
When you are using a shield with which you are not proficient, you take the shield’s armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride checks.
A Bucklers ACP is -1, but if it's masterworked then this is reduced to 0.

Buckler

This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round.

You can’t bash someone with a buckler.
So you can use it, keep both of your hands free, and just take a -1 to hit with your Eldritch Blast.

[awa]

"You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon"
you only take the penalty when using a weapon the blast is not a weapon

[CaladanMoonblad]

Is their any reason why I shouldn't do this? My dm tells me I can use eldritch blast with only one hand. I am also dumping cha and mostly relying on the 24 hour buff spells. (except the shatter one)

Mechanicallly no, roleplaying wise... perhaps.

Do you envision your warlock as using a shield? If no, then don't. If yes, then why? It seems kind of weird for a person to use an item they don't have proficiency in... if you want to be more in step with an eldritch oriented spell caster, why not invest in a Ring of Force Shield? Granted it costs 8500 gp... but there are players who do things for roleplaying purposes... because it is what is in line for their character concept.

What about other warlocks making fun of your character? You know, because apparently you don't trust in your own magic to protect you. Won't they sneer at your shield? Won't they belittle you behind your back? People do all sorts of weird things for social reasons... just to fit in.

[nedz]

"You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon"
you only take the penalty when using a weapon the blast is not a weapon

The blast is a weapon like spell, but if you use your other hand then I guess that's fine.

Unless you have the Improved Buckler Defense feat from CWar then you can only either attack with your off hand (at -1) OR get the shield bonus to AC from the buckler. This would only be relevant with Eldritch Claws, Eldritch Glaive or an actual off hand weapon.

[Urpriest]

Mechanicallly no, roleplaying wise... perhaps.

Do you envision your warlock as using a shield? If no, then don't. If yes, then why? It seems kind of weird for a person to use an item they don't have proficiency in... if you want to be more in step with an eldritch oriented spell caster, why not invest in a Ring of Force Shield? Granted it costs 8500 gp... but there are players who do things for roleplaying purposes... because it is what is in line for their character concept.

What about other warlocks making fun of your character? You know, because apparently you don't trust in your own magic to protect you. Won't they sneer at your shield? Won't they belittle you behind your back? People do all sorts of weird things for social reasons... just to fit in.

Remember, these are adults here, in a story told in the 21st century. The characters aren't teenagers, and this isn't the Belgariad. I feel like a combatant using a shield is fully genre-appropriate.

[magwaaf]

nonslot shield item for 4000g

+4 shield bonus to AC and immune to magic missile.

[awa]

actually its 8000 you forgot the x2 for the 1min per level duration
and that's only if your dm lets you use those optional rules

considering its more then twice as good as a ring of force

personally i have used the buckler on a warlock although i re-fluffed it as a pair of heavy bracers

also don't underestimate having another slot for item crystals a +5 untyped protection from ranged attacked will teach those other warlocks not to mess with you

[magwaaf]

that's right its 8k because its continuous. the heavy crafting obsessed players in my group explained it to me. but still 8k for permanent 4 ac and having your other hand open

[ericgrau]

One less free hand for wielding rods, wands and other random items. Other than that it's totally fine. You may even hold but not wield most items.

A buckler could let you wield items too, though at a -1 penalty to hit and you forego the buckler AC every round you attack with the item.

A ring of force shield provides 2 AC and costs 8,500 gp. The purpose of the item creation guidelines are to make items of roughly equal power with existing items, so attempting to circumvent that with the guidelines defeats their purpose.

[CaladanMoonblad]

Remember, these are adults here, in a story told in the 21st century. The characters aren't teenagers, and this isn't the Belgariad. I feel like a combatant using a shield is fully genre-appropriate.

There's nothing in the original post stating this a d20 modern campaign. I assumed that since there is a wizard friend to a warlock, and this is under the forum for d&d/PF/3.5/etc...

Spellcasters, and spellcaster societies are typically catty and political, regardless of which science-fiction/fantasy genre is described, by either Eddings or Jordan or Tolkien or whoever (something to do with all this time on their hands since they don't train as combatants). Adults have the worst kind of gossip (and I'm speaking as one); just look at modern politics on any social issue. It's always using "other" rhetoric, with in groups and out-groups.

The original poster asked for any reason why they wouldn't use a mithril shield for a straight up warlock. I provided one.

[Deadline]

There's nothing in the original post stating this a d20 modern campaign. I assumed that since there is a wizard friend to a warlock, and this is under the forum for d&d/PF/3.5/etc...

I believe he's referring to the time period of the players.


Spellcasters, and spellcaster societies are typically catty and political, regardless of which science-fiction/fantasy genre is described, by either Eddings or Jordan or Tolkien or whoever (something to do with all this time on their hands since they don't train as combatants). Adults have the worst kind of gossip (and I'm speaking as one); just look at modern politics on any social issue. It's always using "other" rhetoric, with in groups and out-groups.

The original poster asked for any reason why they wouldn't use a mithril shield for a straight up warlock. I provided one.

It could certainly work for a motivation, but "peer pressure" may not work for the OP. And it doesn't really work as well as you seem to be indicating in your post (barring high school and the like). That doesn't keep it from being employed, mind you, but that's another can of worms.

Certainly, were I a wielder of arcane power gifted to me by whatever otherworldly entities I made a pact with, I'm not sure I'd be all that intimidated or concerned with the taunts and jabs of those who had worse defensive capability than myself.

Well, I might, at least until I reduced them to an eldritch smoking pile of ash...

But yes, there are a host of possibly roleplaying concerns that can govern any aspect of your character. OP, were you looking for a mechanical reason for not using a shield? Or do roleplaying and style reasons work just as well?

[Urpriest]

There's nothing in the original post stating this a d20 modern campaign. I assumed that since there is a wizard friend to a warlock, and this is under the forum for d&d/PF/3.5/etc...

Spellcasters, and spellcaster societies are typically catty and political, regardless of which science-fiction/fantasy genre is described, by either Eddings or Jordan or Tolkien or whoever (something to do with all this time on their hands since they don't train as combatants). Adults have the worst kind of gossip (and I'm speaking as one); just look at modern politics on any social issue. It's always using "other" rhetoric, with in groups and out-groups.

The original poster asked for any reason why they wouldn't use a mithril shield for a straight up warlock. I provided one.

Told in the 21st century, not set in the 21st century.

You're kind of demonstrating my point, really. Tolkien was the dawn of fantasy, Eddings was explicitly riffing off of old tropes, and Jordan wrote about teenagers and was criticized for writing his non-teenager characters (particularly women) like teenagers. Fantasy in the 21st century might portray spellcasters as catty and political, but unless the work is intentionally commenting on academic or office politics (and unless this warlock is a bureaucrat in hell they're likely not part of either sort of community), they don't evince superficial attitudes like "you only need magic to protect you" (especially given, again, that this guy is a warlock: warlocks don't even have AC-boosting invocations!)

There are probably viable fantasy cultures that would frown on a warlock using a shield. Some of them might even be based on the tendency of real-life adults to gossip and ostracize. "The other warlocks will make fun of him for not acting like a stereotypical mage", though, is not viable for anything other than a comedy.

[ericgrau]

Eh Gandalf had a sword. It's not a huge stretch for mages to be wielding anything. Only a counter to the stereotype and a little bit of inconvenience whenever you need that hand.

I think the bad sentiment comes when it seems "strictly better" for all mages to have shields. After all it's free AC with no arcane spell failure. But having a free hand for other objects helps too. And AC is less beneficial on a mage who (a) is usually in the back line and (b) has trouble getting enough AC to make AC optimization worth it. A shield is about as helpful yet inconvenient as you'd expect for a mage. While it helps if you have nothing else to hold I don't think most mage players would bother with one even if explicitly allowed. Not unless you're a melee range mage with other AC too. Hmm, I should include a shield for a melee touch mage build I've been thinking of.

[Spuddles]

Low level society mages might laugh at your mundane means of defense, but wait until you come back loaded with adventure-loot and enough arcane power to kill a dragon.

Then just eye laser them back to "shut the **** up".

Low level adventurers face all sorts of horrible deaths, from falling into a pit full of feces covered spikes, getting gnawed to death by rats, being eaten alive but unable to scream by ghouls, being butchered by orcs, burning to death, drowning, getting your guts sucked out by a spider the size of a horse, being mind controlled into killing your best friends before having your brains sucked out, basically I could go on for like pages about how many different ways to get horribly eaten there are in dnd.

Adventurers have a rough life, they're already weird, they face brutal life & death situations, on average, 4 times a day while "working". I don't think any adventurer would give up 2 AC because civilians laugh at them.

[nedz]

Well there is the Shielded Casting feat from RoS (p144) but the feat tax is quite high and it doesn't work with Bucklers.

[Yogibear41]

I actually thought about using a buckler after posting this, same exact stats as a small shield with the added upside of letting me hold stuff, I have only used a weapon once in combat other than eldritch blast and that was just to turn up and hit something in melee so the rogue I was with could flank it to get sneak attack damage(I missed lol).

I also carry a light crossbown from time to time but not in combat, I have a set of fancy bolts that have grappling hooks so its basically a grappling hook with a rope launcher, so far I've only used it once but it worked! lol

The one problem I do see is I planned on using eldritch glaive once I had a high enough BAB to have more than one attack which wont be for another 4 or 5 levels.

As far as other warlocks laughing at me, their are no other warlocks, well at least if their are they are extremely rare. DM told me that the time of the warlocks in his world was basically thousands of years ago. Also in terms of a roleplaying character not wanting to where armor, I already plan on going into the enlightened spirit prestige class next level even though its basically worse than strait warlock but I like the flavor behind it so I'm willing to give up power for flavor.( I also hope that less people will want to kill the demonic warlock character if my eldritch blasts happen to be holy light instead of darkness and I have shimmering angels wings) Additionally, I already have a mithral breastplate and I'm a dwarf so we like fancy metals and such :smallsmile:


EDIT: I also considered having the shield custom made with slots where wands could be stored and used from inside the shield, probably have to run that by my DM though lol.

[nyjastul69]

...Tolkien was the dawn of fantasy...

:smallconfused: Tolkien was way late to the party. Epic of Gilgamesh maybe, but certainly not Tolkien. Maybe you mean modern fantasy? I would contest that as well but it's a debatable point.

[awa]

epic of Gilgamesh is a religious work i believe we arnt supposed to discus those

[ericgrau]

The rules allow it assuming there are no followers of that religion anymore. I'm not normally one to talk about such things but I think this case is pretty cut and dry.

Tolkein was more like the dawn of D&D style fantasy which heavily influenced other fantasy gaming and a lot of recent fantasy in general. A lot about modern depictions of elves, dwarves, goblins, orcs, etc. started with him. They existed before Tolkein, but in various other forms. Reminds me of playing King's Quest 5 with 6 inch tall elves. Those are not Tolkein influenced.

Anyway Tolkein wizards wielded whatever the heck they wanted, which means your'e really basing a D&D decision on D&D tradition. I suppose they are uncommon and nontraditional in D&D, but so is armor in general. I might not imagine it on a high level wizard, but on a low level wizard knee deep in mud just trying to live long enough to reach big power, sure, why not.

[Cerlis]

Using a buckler keeps both of your hands free.


A Bucklers ACP is -1, but if it's masterworked then this is reduced to 0.

So you can use it, keep both of your hands free, and just take a -1 to hit with your Eldritch Blast.

I was thinking that you have to gesture with your hand but the blast doesnt have to come from it. So you can do eyelasers (or dragon breath, or third eye beam) and it being mechanically legal

[olentu]

EDIT: I also considered having the shield custom made with slots where wands could be stored and used from inside the shield, probably have to run that by my DM though lol.

I believe that the wand chamber modification in dungeonscape can be applied to weapons or shields, assuming you are using that book of course. Then again that defaults to only one wand, as I recall, so you might need to bargain with the DM if you want more.

[JadePhoenix]

The melee warlock handbook defines the relationship between a Warlock and his shield as "a love story".

Make of that what you will.


Posted from Giantitp.com App for Android

[prufock]

I'm throwing my support behind the buckler. I put them on pretty much all my archers, casters, 2-weapon fighters, 2-handed fighters, and pretty much anyone who doesn't have a heavy shield or tower shield. They have the advantage of leaving your off hand free, since it's just strapped to your wrist. Same AC bonus as light shield, same check penalty, same ASF %.

Really, bucklers are the bomb. Even a standard buckler is good - 5% failure comes up rarely (I roll a d20 and hope it isn't a 1), and if you're casting out of combat you can just take it off. MW gets rid of the check penalty.

Short version: the only reason not to get the shield you described is that it requires a hand to wield. A buckler negates that.

[JadePhoenix]

A light shield has the advantage of threatening an area and allowing you to flank, though.

[CaladanMoonblad]

I believe he's referring to the time period of the players.

Why should that matter? Oh, because Meta knowledge drives every great story (/facetious).



It could certainly work for a motivation, but "peer pressure" may not work for the OP. And it doesn't really work as well as you seem to be indicating in your post (barring high school and the like). That doesn't keep it from being employed, mind you, but that's another can of worms.

Certainly, were I a wielder of arcane power gifted to me by whatever otherworldly entities I made a pact with, I'm not sure I'd be all that intimidated or concerned with the taunts and jabs of those who had worse defensive capability than myself.

Well, I might, at least until I reduced them to an eldritch smoking pile of ash...

But yes, there are a host of possibly roleplaying concerns that can govern any aspect of your character. OP, were you looking for a mechanical reason for not using a shield? Or do roleplaying and style reasons work just as well?

In my first response, I typed... "Mechanically no, roleplaying wise... perhaps." to start my suggestion that there were in context reasons not to employ a mechanically sound practice. I agree that warlocks are probably sociopathic so peer pressure may not be as effective (however, peer pressure never stops working- ever hear of "keeping up with the Jones?" Buying the biggest truck, owning the sharpest boat, buying the biggest house, living beyond your means, is all based on peer pressure boosted by media tropes). Thanks for your input, I hope it helps the OP in weighing his decision.


Told in the 21st century, not set in the 21st century.

You're kind of demonstrating my point, really. Tolkien was the dawn of fantasy, Eddings was explicitly riffing off of old tropes, and Jordan wrote about teenagers and was criticized for writing his non-teenager characters (particularly women) like teenagers. Fantasy in the 21st century might portray spellcasters as catty and political, but unless the work is intentionally commenting on academic or office politics (and unless this warlock is a bureaucrat in hell they're likely not part of either sort of community), they don't evince superficial attitudes like "you only need magic to protect you" (especially given, again, that this guy is a warlock: warlocks don't even have AC-boosting invocations!)


Are you forgetting Boethius? Or Aristophanes? Or Beowulf? Or Dante? Or Camelot? Or Mark Twain? Or Jules Verne? Heck, Robert E Howard published his first Conan tale in 1932, while The Hobbit was published in 1937. At least get the 20th century timeline correct.

I imagine that any warlock society might opt for "a good offense is a good defense" as an overriding ethos. Most spellcasters I've read tend to have a biased view of warriors or using such crude equipment when they have the cosmic power of the universe to command.




There are probably viable fantasy cultures that would frown on a warlock using a shield. Some of them might even be based on the tendency of real-life adults to gossip and ostracize. "The other warlocks will make fun of him for not acting like a stereotypical mage", though, is not viable for anything other than a comedy.

Um... politics is everything. If you are not taken seriously, nothing you say is viable. Think of how Saruman treats Radagast, or anyone judges Radagast. Think about how Raistlin views his twin brother Caramon. Think about any Conan villain... magic typically requires organization, if simply to acquire resources.


:smallconfused: Tolkien was way late to the party. Epic of Gilgamesh maybe, but certainly not Tolkien. Maybe you mean modern fantasy? I would contest that as well but it's a debatable point.

Yeah, you beat me to this point. Glad to see other well read peeps on this board.


The rules allow it assuming there are no followers of that religion anymore. I'm not normally one to talk about such things but I think this case is pretty cut and dry.

And of course, the likes of Socrates was sentenced to death for "corrupting the youth of Athens" because he didn't treat "the Gods" as piously as his detractors would like (Socrates' defense was so sound, it was the only charge they could use for attacking a teacher who didn't demand payment for lessons). All the ancient philosophers and playwrights had abandoned the local religion to pursue their work (the plays had ceased to be about worshipping the Gods and instead became pure Entertainment- this is one of the historical roots of RPG). It's the reason Francis of Assisi married Greek Philosophy to [forum censored] Theology. The Greeks had reasoned away polytheism in favor of monotheism, all without a prophet or the claim of divine inspiration. This is also part of the Perspectival consciousness structure (see Jean Gebser's "The Everpresent Origin", which outlines the Archaic, the Magic, the Mythic, and the Perspectival consciousness structures of historical societies).



Tolkein was more like the dawn of D&D style fantasy which heavily influenced other fantasy gaming and a lot of recent fantasy in general. A lot about modern depictions of elves, dwarves, goblins, orcs, etc. started with him. They existed before Tolkein, but in various other forms. Reminds me of playing King's Quest 5 with 6 inch tall elves. Those are not Tolkein influenced.

Anyway Tolkein wizards wielded whatever the heck they wanted, which means your'e really basing a D&D decision on D&D tradition. I suppose they are uncommon and nontraditional in D&D, but so is armor in general. I might not imagine it on a high level wizard, but on a low level wizard knee deep in mud just trying to live long enough to reach big power, sure, why not.

There are 5 Tolkien wizards. Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Alatar, and Pallando. Please note that the three we read about, only 1 carries a sword and staff, but all three wield staves. The mechanics of D&D reflect this social aversion to weaponry and armor in the feats given.

Gary Alan Fine's "Shared Fantasy" gives a typology of reasons why people play RPG, and 1) escape, and 2) winning were always at odds. Some people play RPGs because it is fun to make decisions for a fantasy character and tell a group story, but other people regard RPG as some sort of board game where there are definite winners and losers. It's fairly apparent to any observer to determine who falls where in the spectrum between roleplaying and mechanics based on their responses. Ideology drives nearly all communication.

Were I the OP's GM, I'd certainly have NPC spellcasters deride the Warlock at every opportunity, or purposely target such a weakling as "easy meat who hides behind a shield." /shrugs

[Deadline]

Why should that matter? Oh, because Meta knowledge drives every great story (/facetious).

Tilt somewhere else, there are no windmills here.


In my first response, I typed... "Mechanically no, roleplaying wise... perhaps." to start my suggestion that there were in context reasons not to employ a mechanically sound practice. I agree that warlocks are probably sociopathic so peer pressure may not be as effective (however, peer pressure never stops working- ever hear of "keeping up with the Jones?" Buying the biggest truck, owning the sharpest boat, buying the biggest house, living beyond your means, is all based on peer pressure boosted by media tropes). Thanks for your input, I hope it helps the OP in weighing his decision.

I didn't say it stopped working, I said it was less effective. And yes, in the portion of my post that you quoted, I acknowledged that you said your reason was a roleplaying one. So ... I wasn't arguing with you on that? *shrug*


Were I the OP's GM, I'd certainly have NPC spellcasters deride the Warlock at every opportunity, or purposely target such a weakling as "easy meat who hides behind a shield." /shrugs

You could, but what about when he smites them all? What would you do then? Or would you simply make sure that the NPC spellcasters were all fully capable of wiping the floor with him so that he'd "learn his lesson" and be a better roleplayer? (Which would be awful) Or would you do it simply to provide potentially meaningful conflict? (which could be good)

[Urpriest]

Why should that matter? Oh, because Meta knowledge drives every great story (/facetious).

No, but knowledge of what pleases your audience does. Nerd audiences (especially the type that like mechanically complex and metagame-heavy out of print games like D&D 3.5) aren't into unironic use of tired tropes.




Are you forgetting Boethius? Or Aristophanes? Or Beowulf? Or Dante? Or Camelot? Or Mark Twain? Or Jules Verne? Heck, Robert E Howard published his first Conan tale in 1932, while The Hobbit was published in 1937. At least get the 20th century timeline correct.

The problem with being more precise is that there was a 50% chance you'd have exactly the opposite reaction ("no, Tolkien founded fantasy!") depending on your knowledgebase.

Yes, fantasy as a genre is certainly older than Tolkien (though certainly not as old as half the people you mentioned, magical elements do not a fantasy make). That doesn't change the fact that Tolkien is not the sort of fantasy people are writing these days. Tolkien is a progenitor of 21st century fantasy, not an example of it.



I imagine that any warlock society might opt for "a good offense is a good defense" as an overriding ethos. Most spellcasters I've read tend to have a biased view of warriors or using such crude equipment when they have the cosmic power of the universe to command.

Again, where have you been reading about these spellcasters? About the only times I run into spellcasters like that in fiction are in D&D derivative works or parodies like Pratchett. And while "a good offense is a good defense" is all well and good, it doesn't fit warlock abilities either, since their main damage source is slow and not good for annihilating folks before they get to you, sans optimization.



Gary Alan Fine's "Shared Fantasy" gives a typology of reasons why people play RPG, and 1) escape, and 2) winning were always at odds. Some people play RPGs because it is fun to make decisions for a fantasy character and tell a group story, but other people regard RPG as some sort of board game where there are definite winners and losers. It's fairly apparent to any observer to determine who falls where in the spectrum between roleplaying and mechanics based on their responses. Ideology drives nearly all communication.


I see this as the most fundamental issue here. Escape is predicated on immersion, and immersion requires plausibility. As soon as you have combatants making fun of a combatant because they're using a tool that makes them a better combatant in a world where combat is risky and fast, you break immersion. There are games where you escape to a world where story and image rule the outcomes of events. If you're an oWoD Changeling who acts like a warlock and gets made fun of by other characters for wearing a kevlar vest or something, that makes some amount of sense, because the theme your escapist players are escaping to is one of a rebellion against banality in favor of style. But escapist players in D&D aren't going for that. Someone playing D&D 3.5 these days (remember, the game is out of print, and has been for quite some time) does it because it enables SWAT-team style competent characters who pick apart puzzles in a world where everything is potentially a puzzle, who can change the world and interact with it through ingenious use of their abilities. That's not a gamist "playing to win" ethos, that's the sort of story they want to tell. They want Ender's Game, not Margaret Weiss. That's still a story, that's still escapism. If they're looking for a different story, there are better systems for them to use.

[Spuddles]

Well said, Ur Priest.


A light shield has the advantage of threatening an area and allowing you to flank, though.

So does a gauntlet, a staff, a rod, or spiked armor.

[CaladanMoonblad]

No, but knowledge of what pleases your audience does. Nerd audiences (especially the type that like mechanically complex and metagame-heavy out of print games like D&D 3.5) aren't into unironic use of tired tropes.

There are two Hasty Generalizations fallacies above; a) nerd audiences' likes, B) that D&D is metagame-heavy. The first is without evidence, the second is demonstrably false (read the DM's Guide regarding metagame knowledge for the text's admonitions).



The problem with being more precise is that there was a 50% chance you'd have exactly the opposite reaction ("no, Tolkien founded fantasy!") depending on your knowledgebase.


No, there is a 100% chance that published dates of texts is definitively useful in assessing the divergence of fantasy and science-fiction. Both genres have the same background, and share themes from the aforementioned authors. Fantasy did not spring from the head of [forum censored deity name]; it developed, over time, based on audience and literary movements. The first fantasy worlds developed from the earlier pre-histories of Earth, which developed from traditional legend stories. This can be traced via texts; indeed, texts coupled with artifacts are our primary windows into our history as a sapient species.



Yes, fantasy as a genre is certainly older than Tolkien (though certainly not as old as half the people you mentioned, magical elements do not a fantasy make). That doesn't change the fact that Tolkien is not the sort of fantasy people are writing these days. Tolkien is a progenitor of 21st century fantasy, not an example of it.


I disagree for the above reasons- Tolkien was a stepping stone to the pure fantasy literary world. I'd peg the Narnia series as the first true fantastic world that was not science fiction based (ie, requiring technology to reach alien shores).



Again, where have you been reading about these spellcasters? About the only times I run into spellcasters like that in fiction are in D&D derivative works or parodies like Pratchett. And while "a good offense is a good defense" is all well and good, it doesn't fit warlock abilities either, since their main damage source is slow and not good for annihilating folks before they get to you, sans optimization.


Considering this is a D&D game question... I'd suggest series like Dragonlance, or even the PHB, or perhaps, Greyhawk. If the game world is homebrew, then it's the GM's perogative and response should be consistent. Otherwise, I would also point out the short stories of Robert E Howard as an early indication of spellcasters' disdain for physical combat in lieu of their magical prowess. Maybe you're unfamiliar with the character of Conan?



I see this as the most fundamental issue here. Escape is predicated on immersion, and immersion requires plausibility. As soon as you have combatants making fun of a combatant because they're using a tool that makes them a better combatant in a world where combat is risky and fast, you break immersion.


No, not really. Dealing with "face" and "keeping the respect of your peers" is plausibility... it is helping immersion. Stating the opposite is ridiculous on its face. Please see Erving Goffman's "The Presentation of Self" for this type of argument.



There are games where you escape to a world where story and image rule the outcomes of events. If you're an oWoD Changeling who acts like a warlock and gets made fun of by other characters for wearing a kevlar vest or something, that makes some amount of sense, because the theme your escapist players are escaping to is one of a rebellion against banality in favor of style.


So... your point here is "game worlds need consistency." I agree.



But escapist players in D&D aren't going for that.


That's a hasty generalization. Again, please get a copy of "Shared Fantasy" and see what an actual sociological study of gamers concluded about motivations to play D&D. I recognize that motivations have not changed since this study, and if you've played with dozens of players over two decades as I have, you'll come to the same conclusion after reading the text.



Someone playing D&D 3.5 these days (remember, the game is out of print, and has been for quite some time) does it because it enables SWAT-team style competent characters who pick apart puzzles in a world where everything is potentially a puzzle, who can change the world and interact with it through ingenious use of their abilities. That's not a gamist "playing to win" ethos, that's the sort of story they want to tell. They want Ender's Game, not Margaret Weiss. That's still a story, that's still escapism. If they're looking for a different story, there are better systems for them to use.

Another hasty generalization of motivation.

Here's the thing Ur-Priest, being "out of print" is irrelevant. There are still people telling Star Wars stories using WEG's bucket of dice system. There are still people telling Middle Earth stories using ICE's percentile system of tables. There are still people using each of the various systems of D&D to tell fantasy stories. I agree wholeheartedly with Roland Barthes' essay on "Death of the Author" (if you have not read it, you can do so here (http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf), for free).

As I said previously, ideology drives communication. I provided a reason for the OP why s/he may not want to use a mithril shield, but at least I was respectful of varying ideologies by using the caveat "perhaps." I cannot say the same for others in this thread.

[Urpriest]

There are two Hasty Generalizations fallacies above; a) nerd audiences' likes, B) that D&D is metagame-heavy. The first is without evidence, the second is demonstrably false (read the DM's Guide regarding metagame knowledge for the text's admonitions).

Not metagaming, metagame. D&D 3.5 is a game filled with absolute counters, level-based breakpoints in the relevance of a strategy, rock-paper-scissors dynamics...the classes even follow a rough tier system. The game lends itself enormously to MTG or Starcraft-esque metagame considerations, far more than other RPGs available.




No, there is a 100% chance that published dates of texts is definitively useful in assessing the divergence of fantasy and science-fiction. Both genres have the same background, and share themes from the aforementioned authors. Fantasy did not spring from the head of [forum censored deity name]; it developed, over time, based on audience and literary movements. The first fantasy worlds developed from the earlier pre-histories of Earth, which developed from traditional legend stories. This can be traced via texts; indeed, texts coupled with artifacts are our primary windows into our history as a sapient species.

None of which changes the fact that the average person I talk to on the forum has a 50% chance of knowing that Conan predates Tolkien (not to mention the chance of following your particular classification of fantasy). A priori I didn't know which class you would fall into.



I disagree for the above reasons- Tolkien was a stepping stone to the pure fantasy literary world. I'd peg the Narnia series as the first true fantastic world that was not science fiction based (ie, requiring technology to reach alien shores).


So you're arguing that Tolkien doesn't count as fantasy? I don't particularly care to argue the point, place the dividing line as you like. The point remains that Tolkien isn't an example of the sort of work popular with D&D 3.5's current demographic, except in that they appreciate its historical role/role in their personal maturation.



Considering this is a D&D game question... I'd suggest series like Dragonlance, or even the PHB, or perhaps, Greyhawk. If the game world is homebrew, then it's the GM's perogative and response should be consistent. Otherwise, I would also point out the short stories of Robert E Howard as an early indication of spellcasters' disdain for physical combat in lieu of their magical prowess. Maybe you're unfamiliar with the character of Conan?

Dragonlance wasn't brought forward as a full WotC setting in 3.5 for a reason. It's pretty much the posterchild of outdated and derided fantasy tropes. Bring up kender or tinker gnomes or gully dwarves anywhere on the internet and watch the reaction.

The PHB intentionally avoids most of this discussion, and later books had a rather thorough habit of breaking down the few tropes the PHB raised. Greyhawk has had very little new material post 3.0, it's rather clearly an example of older sensibilities. And Conan by your own admission predates the fantasy genre itself, Howard's work is hardly an example of what sells to modern audiences.



No, not really. Dealing with "face" and "keeping the respect of your peers" is plausibility... it is helping immersion. Stating the opposite is ridiculous on its face. Please see Erving Goffman's "The Presentation of Self" for this type of argument.

Cultures are influenced by the circumstances in which they exist. If those circumstances have a high degree of lethality, the culture will shed biases that tend to get people killed. Regardless, again, we're talking about warlocks, who aren't expected to have a culture to begin with, especially in the OP's case.



That's a hasty generalization. Again, please get a copy of "Shared Fantasy" and see what an actual sociological study of gamers concluded about motivations to play D&D. I recognize that motivations have not changed since this study, and if you've played with dozens of players over two decades as I have, you'll come to the same conclusion after reading the text.


The base motivations may be the same, but the genres those players enjoy have changed dramatically. You're talking about a book written in the 80's. If you were reading an analysis of fashion in the 80's or music in the 80's, you wouldn't expect the tastes depicted to still hold today. People still want escape, people still want to win...but the places people want to escape to, the game mechanics they want to win with, these have changed. Kender were acceptable in 80's works. They simply aren't today, except among communities that date back to the 80's.



Another hasty generalization of motivation.

Here's the thing Ur-Priest, being "out of print" is irrelevant. There are still people telling Star Wars stories using WEG's bucket of dice system. There are still people telling Middle Earth stories using ICE's percentile system of tables. There are still people using each of the various systems of D&D to tell fantasy stories. I agree wholeheartedly with Roland Barthes' essay on "Death of the Author" (if you have not read it, you can do so here (http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf), for free).

Out of print is relevant for precisely the reason you are describing it as irrelevant. People still use WEG, people still use ICE, people still use every edition of D&D that was ever published...and they do it because it tells the stories that they want to tell.

Games that are in print are different. People who play D&D 4e, or who will play D&D 5e, might simply play it because it's the type of D&D that's in stores, because it's what they can get or what they've heard of. But if you're playing an out of print game, you're doing it for a reason. You're doing it because the game is good at what you like. And D&D 3.5 is very bad at telling stories about people having tropey adventures, and very good at telling stories about competent people in a harsh and complicated world.



As I said previously, ideology drives communication. I provided a reason for the OP why s/he may not want to use a mithril shield, but at least I was respectful of varying ideologies by using the caveat "perhaps." I cannot say the same for others in this thread.

Oh, I fully acknowledge that I'm taking advantage of your comment to promote a tangential agenda. I'm tired of people using "roleplaying" as an excuse to enforce genre conventions on a game that doesn't support those conventions, especially when they are effectively discounting the more modern trends in fantasy (read something by Brandon Sanderson or China Mieville on one hand, or consider anime on the other) that are more likely to resonate with the players more likely (whether due to youth or taste) to frequent this forum.

Yes, in your case, you couched your point as a suggestion, not as the sort of totalizing judgement which the point often resembles. That doesn't change the fact that you were willing to have an extensive intellectual discussion on the subject, which is all I was going for here. If the OP feels like this tangent is distracting from the purpose of the thread, I am of course willing to take the discussion to PMs.

[JadePhoenix]

I want to congratulate CaladanMoonblad and Urpriest on their very interesting and very polite debate. An example for all playgrounders.